Member mrj… Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 This topic was imported from the Typophile platform Hi, Does anyone know if anyone has ever made a digital version of Semplicità by Alessandro Butti? I love the mix of futura and other european art deco faces! Link to comment
Member old… Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 Someone has been thinking about it, but it's in the middle of a queue of a LOOOOONG to-do list... Link to comment
Member Jan… Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 http://www.studiodilena.it/fonts/semplicita.php Link to comment
Member mrj… Posted March 2, 2011 Author Share Posted March 2, 2011 Wow, someone has done it!?! For Free? This requires closer inspection! How do you feel about Studio Dilena's efforts Oldnick? I think the A's crossbar looks a little high compared to the image I posted. It's hard to tell without an original type spec in front of me tho. It's also hard to tell if the E's underbite is too pronounced or not, it looks like it might be but I wouldn't like to say it is just from the small image I posted. The lower case u looks a little suspect as well. And overall, the whole lower case looks to have more constricted counters perhaps than in the image. It's so hard to say, I know there is a type spec book kicking around with a full page of Semplicità, maybe that's what Studio Dilena used and they are actually much closer to the mark than I think. Any type designers have a valuable opinion they'd care to share? Link to comment
Member J.M… Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 The lowercase a is dreadful. Link to comment
Member mrj… Posted March 2, 2011 Author Share Posted March 2, 2011 a dreadful design? or a dreadful rendering of the original drawing? or both? Link to comment
Member nca… Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 2011 For anyone interested in this typeface, Semplicita Pro, a contemporary revival of Butti's masterpiece, has just been released. It's been designed by Bill Troop and Patrick Griffin: http://new.myfonts.com/fonts/canadatype/semplicita-pro/ Also check the pdf: http://origin.myfonts.com/s/aw/original/124/0/63655.pdf It looks like a very serious effort. Link to comment
Member F l… Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 The updated link is http://www.studiodilena.it/index.php/semplicita.html Hi .00, I'm the author of the font (Semplicità by Studio Di Lena). As always, I love well-detailed technical comments: so why don't you tell me what's wrong with the lowercases? To mrjono: yes, the font is free. The A crossbar, as well as the font thikness and ascenders and descenders vary greatly with the size of the original (as a font lover, you must know it!). You can find some example here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/n1ke/1483278380/, were you can compare some letters of different sizes. My font is taken from size 36 (here an example: http://www.flickr.com/photos/fountaineer/278176910/) Link to comment
Member hra… Posted December 29, 2012 Share Posted December 29, 2012 Leonardo, thank you for reviving this thread. It's interesting that after 80+ years two revivals pop up around the same time. Which one came first? Also, are there no rights issues? I'm not sure but I think Nebiolo's rights ended up with Neufville. That "a": I personally like it (there are other things I don't though) but I think it ended up looking better at Canada Type. BTW it's nice to see that Bill Troop is still active in type. hhp Link to comment
Member F l… Posted December 29, 2012 Share Posted December 29, 2012 My effort was to try to make the font like the original. I've used it for a business card, and I must to say is that it worked just fine. The Canada Type is a very good font, but: - The capital B is too different from the original (too wide and too optical corrected). - The capital G has the orizontal bar too high. - The capital J is invented. - The capital L is too wide. - The capital P is different (the bowl has a totally different shape). - The capital R is absolutely wrong (too wide and the leg is too angled). Strange enough, they made a very good work with the lowercases (strange cut at the base of the lowercase J, and strange lowercases H, M and N, but I think they get the spirit of the other letters), but numbers are totally invented. PS: I've published the font in the October of 2010, the Canada Type is of the August 25, 2011 (according to what is written on MyFonts). Link to comment
Member hra… Posted December 29, 2012 Share Posted December 29, 2012 It's possible they got the idea for doing a revival from you. hhp Link to comment
Member F l… Posted December 30, 2012 Share Posted December 30, 2012 Maybe, but I don't think so. Regarding my font, I've found some mistakes: - some letters (A, M, ...) lacks of the geometric corrections in the apexes. - Capital A: I think mrjono was right about the crossbar... - Capital U is not exactly the same. - the points of the lowercases I and J are wrong (they must be elongated in some way). Probably I can manage to address these and other errors with a new version. Link to comment
Member hra… Posted December 30, 2012 Share Posted December 30, 2012 If/when you make a better version, better to sell it, not give it away. hhp Link to comment
Member F l… Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 Thank you for implicit appreciation! However, I will write here as soon as I finish the job. Link to comment
Member J.M… Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 F l a n k e r Hi .00, I'm the author of the font (Semplicità by Studio Di Lena). As always, I love well-detailed technical comments: so why don't you tell me what's wrong with the lowercases? My comment was on the lowercase letter a, which is entirely too black/dark/dense when viewed against the other glyphs. It may be what was in the original, but then the original would have been dreadful as well. Link to comment
Member hra… Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 But then what about the "s"? I thought you meant the structure, since I myself wouldn't use "dreadful" to describe a somewhat heavy/clotted glyph. hhp Link to comment
Member F l… Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 Hrant, you have found propbably one of the Achilles' heel of the font. The "s" is wrong (but I like it, is so vintage). The "dreadfulness", as you said, is due to my stubbornness in keeping constant the size of the strokes (yes I like the grotesk fonts). The "a" was very close to the original, at last the original from the source that I have (Manuela Rattin, Matteo Ricci, "Questione di carattere. La tipografia in Italia dal 1861 agli anni settanta"), but I can try to improve it. Sincerely I hoped that to judge a font it was necessary, at least, its superficial knowledge. Since I am really overworked I probably would not be able to finish the font for a couple of months... If someone of you can provide some good source, it will very appreciated! Link to comment
Member F l… Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 I almost forgot, there is a good copy of the font and it is named Simplo (here the medium version: http://www.myfonts.com/fonts/durotype/simplo/medium/) Link to comment
Member old… Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 Flanker, I agree that the durotype version is not only good, but it is substantially better than any of the other attempts at revival of this workmanlike, if somewhat quirky face. IMHO, Butti had a unique, if somewhat madcap vision of letterforms which manifests itself consistently across the body of his work. Link to comment
Member pic… Posted January 11, 2013 Share Posted January 11, 2013 None of the versions is actually faithful to the original, but given the difficulty non-italian designers must have had to acquire specimen material, I agree Durotype’s version is acceptable (but pretty "invented" in the heavier weights). Plus, all these do not take into account the point sizes: Semplicità was not super-accurately crafted as Simoncini faces would have been, but the small sizes in lead were adequately designed, and spaced. @oldnick: I assure you Semplicità is not merely an average "workhorse": as you’d see with printed material at hand it has a quite unique personality, and in Italy it has been a very important typeface. I have been working on a proper digital version of it, as I mentioned to Patrick Griffin last year, but it takes ages. It is a very important typeface for me, and I can’t stand those versions, although I appreciate the rough attempt done by Flanker (which should have been the first: I dreamed of a digital version since I started my interest, in the late 1980s). Link to comment
Member old… Posted January 11, 2013 Share Posted January 11, 2013 @oldnick: I assure you Semplicità is not merely an average "workhorse": as you’d see with printed material at hand it has a quite unique personality, and in Italy it has been a very important typeface. Did I say anything different? Link to comment
Member Té… Posted January 12, 2013 Share Posted January 12, 2013 @oldnick – Nope, but not everyone knows off-hand that 'workmanlike' can mean 'well done'. Link to comment
Member F l… Posted January 14, 2013 Share Posted January 14, 2013 @piccic: I didn't know that you were working on a digital revival project of this font. My version do not want to be nothing more than a free font and an interpretation of mine of the Semplicità. I would really like a reconstruction 100% faithful to the original (also with various optical sizes, why not!). If you believe it appropriate, we may join forces to speed up the project. @all: I can assure that when printed, this font was absolutely awesome. As I said I've used my version for some business cards and the result was very good. Link to comment
Member hra… Posted January 14, 2013 Share Posted January 14, 2013 nothing more than a free font That's not really doing Semplicità a favor... hhp Link to comment
Member F l… Posted January 15, 2013 Share Posted January 15, 2013 That's your thaughts hrant. But I think you have already expressed your opinion, that moreover I have understood and thaken it into account. Link to comment
6
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now